Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: We had begun our jury selection process this morning, but
Speaker 1: I've been informed that there is a change of flea.
Speaker 2: For the second time in as many days, a lawyer
Speaker 2: for Donald Trump took a plea on Friday in a
Speaker 2: case accusing the former president and eighteen others of racketeering
Speaker 2: as part of a scheme to keep Trump in power
Speaker 2: after he lost the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 1: How do you plead to count fifteen conspiracy to commit
Speaker 1: filing false documents in indictment number two three sc one
Speaker 1: eight eight, nine four seven guilty.
Speaker 2: Kenneth Chesbro's plea to one felony charge came as jury
Speaker 2: selection was getting underway in the trial, and a day
Speaker 2: after fellow attorney Sidney Powell entered her own guilty plea
Speaker 2: to six misdemeanor counts. The two guilty pleas, along with
Speaker 2: a third from a bail bondsman last month, are victories
Speaker 2: for a Fulton County District attorney, Finie Willis. The question
Speaker 2: is how significant you're to answer? That question? Is Michael
Speaker 2: Moore of Moore Hall, the former US attorney for the
Speaker 2: Middle District of Georgia. So Michael, just how significant are
Speaker 2: these three Please?
Speaker 1: Well, anytime that there is a plea agreement where co
Speaker 1: defendants agree to testify against a key defendant, that's a
Speaker 1: big deal. But when you look at this endictment and
Speaker 1: you look at the charges and specific the defendants who
Speaker 1: have pled guilty, I'm not sure that this gets the
Speaker 1: DA much further down the road. And really, this is
Speaker 1: why the charges that Sidney Powell pled to were basically
Speaker 1: dealing with a Coffee County issue and that part of
Speaker 1: the state, and whether or not somebody access some voting
Speaker 1: machines down there to do a review and whether or
Speaker 1: not that was proper, I'm not sure anybody will ever
Speaker 1: be able to put that directly back on the former president.
Speaker 1: When you look at the chessbro plea, he pleaded guilty
Speaker 1: to charges surrounding the fake electors. And remember it was
Speaker 1: really his legal memos that sort of set up the
Speaker 1: idea of using this alternate slate of electors. And so
Speaker 1: I think the former president would be able to say
Speaker 1: I've relied on his advice and he told me what
Speaker 1: to do, and you know, he was a lawyer, and
Speaker 1: you know this kind of thing and they've done it
Speaker 1: in Hawaii and it is different. But I just don't
Speaker 1: know how far that goes. So there is some significance,
Speaker 1: and I think it's always useful information. You know, if
Speaker 1: you think about a puzzle, you'd have to put all
Speaker 1: the pieces together to see it. This is simply a
Speaker 1: couple of pieces. But I think the DA will have
Speaker 1: access to it may frankly become more useful to the
Speaker 1: federal prosecution given what we know about that case, and
Speaker 1: in that case it's a much more tailored type prosecution
Speaker 1: with Trump as the defendant. And there may be some
Speaker 1: information that Ms Powell has about individual meetings that she
Speaker 1: had with the former president to give some context to
Speaker 1: some of the allegations that special counsel is making. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it was necessarily a game changer for
Speaker 1: Fulton County, but it may be useful in Washington in
Speaker 1: that case.
Speaker 2: Okay, I have a lot of questions. The first is, so,
Speaker 2: for Bonnie Willis, was it really critical to avoid going
Speaker 2: to trial with these two defendants and showcasing her evidence
Speaker 2: to Trump? So was it more about that than it
Speaker 2: was about the evidence they specifically might have?
Speaker 1: I think so, I mean if you look at the
Speaker 1: idea of having to put a case on to preview
Speaker 1: the case and the complete book of evidence, if you will,
Speaker 1: for a more critical defendant. I don't think there was
Speaker 1: any question that she didn't want to do that in
Speaker 1: this case. And so to the extent that these two
Speaker 1: defendants filed for some relief under the Speedy Trial Act
Speaker 1: in the State of Georgia, which meant their case had
Speaker 1: to be tried and started at least jury selected in October,
Speaker 1: I think that put the DA a little bit under
Speaker 1: the gun, and these were not two defendants were the
Speaker 1: greatest cases that she wanted to go with first. So
Speaker 1: what we saw then is a plea offer made. And
Speaker 1: it's not uncommon for people to make plea offers. That's
Speaker 1: sort of just playbook stuff for prosecutors. But we saw
Speaker 1: a plea offer made that really was pretty insignificant. What
Speaker 1: we saw obviously will misdemeanor please for miss Powell, and
Speaker 1: a felony plea dealing with file and a paper and
Speaker 1: preparing a paper for mister Chesbrook, both receiving probation, both
Speaker 1: apparently being able to maintain their first defender of status
Speaker 1: and so they'll have no criminal conviction at all, both
Speaker 1: could vote, and both those kinds of things that we
Speaker 1: think about often following a criminal conviction, those won't be
Speaker 1: in place for them. So to think about this is
Speaker 1: that these were the architects, or the masterminds, if you will,
Speaker 1: of the big election scheme and the fraud, the big life.
Speaker 1: The sentence of probation was pretty meager, especially then when
Speaker 1: you stack that up against the sentences that we've seen
Speaker 1: for some of the January the sixth defendants, who while
Speaker 1: clearly that was at least it might beinion an insurrection
Speaker 1: effort and an effort to go in and recav it
Speaker 1: at the Capitol, but you're seeing many many of them
Speaker 1: get jail time, which you have the people who came
Speaker 1: up or who were responsible at least for the theories
Speaker 1: and the stories that may have been the catalyst for
Speaker 1: that day. They're getting dis demain or promoted sentences. So
Speaker 1: it seems a lot, and that tells me that it
Speaker 1: was likely that did not want this to be the
Speaker 1: case that she put forward first. It also tells me
Speaker 1: that now the judge will have another he had blocked
Speaker 1: off I believe five months for the trial. This gives
Speaker 1: some ability for them to maneuver and try to put
Speaker 1: if they can squeeze another group of dependents in somewhere
Speaker 1: in the first half of next year. I think you'll
Speaker 1: see some effort to do that.
Speaker 2: Sidney Powell did have a lot of contact direct contact
Speaker 2: with Trump, including that infamous Oval Office meeting where there
Speaker 2: was screaming on December eighteenth of twenty twenty. So wouldn't
Speaker 2: she be called at least to testify about her contacts
Speaker 2: with Trump?
Speaker 1: I think so, And I think she would do that
Speaker 1: in the chords with the terms of any type of
Speaker 1: pleague group. The question will be what information does she
Speaker 1: give The help will really to prove in the rest
Speaker 1: of the prosecution's case. And so she may say was
Speaker 1: at the meeting and I was given my advice, and
Speaker 1: people that the grove my advice that became heated. That
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean it's a criminal charge. So I think
Speaker 1: she's looking at and they're probably considering her a being
Speaker 1: a witness to again sort of give context to what
Speaker 1: happened without necessarily being a key codefendant. Think about a
Speaker 1: bank robbery case and you send your accomplice out to
Speaker 1: buy the guns while you go steal the car. It's
Speaker 1: going to be the getaway car, and then you meet
Speaker 1: back at a certain place, you go in rob the bank. Well,
Speaker 1: clearly there's a great testimony to be had by one
Speaker 1: defendant there against the other about what their role may
Speaker 1: have been. I don't know, And frankly, we just don't know,
Speaker 1: because there are parts of this case that we don't
Speaker 1: have a complete vision to yet. But we don't know
Speaker 1: how much information she has to directly sort of point
Speaker 1: the finger Trump. There may be other people in the campaign.
Speaker 1: There may be other people that were there at that meeting.
Speaker 1: There may be other folks who she had contact with
Speaker 1: about you know, we're going to look at these election
Speaker 1: machines and that information be relevant, but it may not
Speaker 1: be sort of the silver bullet that folks thought it
Speaker 1: might be.
Speaker 2: Jess Brow's lawyer said his client had agreed to testify
Speaker 2: against other co defendants, but he would be surprised if
Speaker 2: you were called as a witness in any future case.
Speaker 2: He didn't snitch on anyone. He simply decided it was
Speaker 2: time for him to put this behind him and go
Speaker 2: on with his life. I mean, he didn't snitch on anyone.
Speaker 1: Well, that can be and I mean so somebody can
Speaker 1: plead to an act. They could plead to conduct and
Speaker 1: say yes, I did this, and while I may not
Speaker 1: have believed that was wrong, you're telling me government that
Speaker 1: was wrong. I did the conduct, so you charge me
Speaker 1: with doing the act. So in this case, doing the
Speaker 1: paperwork or whatever for the alternati electors. So I did that.
Speaker 1: If you're saying that's wrong, yes I did it, and
Speaker 1: rather than go to trial, I'll let or so plea
Speaker 1: and I'll testify that in fact I did it. But
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that that person has to have changed
Speaker 1: their mind or changed their theory about why they So
Speaker 1: you oftentimes see the defendants say, well, the government's got me.
Speaker 1: I did this. In fact, I did what they're saying.
Speaker 1: I had my own reasons for it, but this is
Speaker 1: what I did it, and I do want to put
Speaker 1: this behind me. I don't know how it could be
Speaker 1: the I mean, he may not have snitched directly on somebody,
Speaker 1: but I think his testimony could come in and be
Speaker 1: problematic for defendants certainly. So he may not have said, well,
Speaker 1: John Doe, and I went to the printer and printed
Speaker 1: these things off. You know, that would be directly snitching
Speaker 1: on John Doe, but he may talk about the calls
Speaker 1: that he made, the efforts that he had, the discussions
Speaker 1: that he had to sort of implement this alternate slate
Speaker 1: of electors. And at that point, and it's up to
Speaker 1: the Trier fact which will likely be a jury to
Speaker 1: decide whether or not those other defendants be off what
Speaker 1: they did, based in part, at least upon some testimony
Speaker 1: that print may give.
Speaker 2: I was wondering if Chesburrow's testimony would actually be more
Speaker 2: dangerous for Johnny Spent or Rudy Giuliani, the other lawyers
Speaker 2: in the case.
Speaker 1: It could, and I thought his case was particularly unusual
Speaker 1: in sense that you did have a lawyer charge of
Speaker 1: criminal conduct for writing legal memoranium. And I think that
Speaker 1: can be problematic and maybe a foreboding sign to other
Speaker 1: lawyers who are charged in the case. You know, simply
Speaker 1: because somebody has played guilty doesn't mean that they now
Speaker 1: believe that the election was completely legitimate. And I think
Speaker 1: that's maybe what people are thinking when they think about
Speaker 1: the import of these particular pleas, like somehow these folks
Speaker 1: have had a you know, come to Jesus moment and
Speaker 1: have decided that everything they've ever done was wrong, and
Speaker 1: it was all off or aught, And so they're entering
Speaker 1: their plea that may not in fact be the case.
Speaker 1: They're required to acknowledge their criminal conduct or conduct in
Speaker 1: a criminal case, but they're not necessarily required to give
Speaker 1: up personally held beliefs, and so it may become it
Speaker 1: may very become a fine life or prosecutor to walk
Speaker 1: on with orn. I decided to call this witness because
Speaker 1: they may say something that rings true with some potential juror,
Speaker 1: or they may say something that puts a cloud over
Speaker 1: my allegations against another defend that you're that type of thing.
Speaker 1: And so that's why I say that it's always significant
Speaker 1: to have co defendants flea, but it's not necessarily the
Speaker 1: end of the case by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 2: Coming up, we'll talk about the implications for the federal case.
Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg attorney kennef Chesbro pleaded guilty to a
Speaker 2: felony on Friday, just as jury selection was getting under
Speaker 2: way and his trial on charges accusing him of participating
Speaker 2: in efforts to overturn Donald Trump's loss in the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty election in Georgia. His plea came a day after
Speaker 2: fellow attorney Sidney Powell, who'd been scheduled to go to
Speaker 2: trial alongside him, entered her own guilty plea to six
Speaker 2: misdemeanor counts. I've been talking to Michael Moore of Moore Hall.
Speaker 2: You mentioned the Special Council's case. These two are also
Speaker 2: co conspirators. I think it's three to five in the
Speaker 2: Special Council's election interference case. Do you think the defense
Speaker 2: has been in touch with the Special Council? I mean,
Speaker 2: do you plead in a state case when you have
Speaker 2: exposure in a federal case.
Speaker 1: I would think there has had to have been some discussions.
Speaker 1: I mean, but I also think there have been some
Speaker 1: discussions between state prosecutors and federal prosecutors. You know that's
Speaker 1: been pretty much disavowed. If they had any discussions, that
Speaker 1: strikes me as strange and frankly out of the norm.
Speaker 1: So I would hope and expect that there was some
Speaker 1: discussion about how these defendants would move forward in the
Speaker 1: face and sort of the second Acts that was hanging
Speaker 1: over their head, and that'd be in the federal case,
Speaker 1: so I do think. And then they may be called
Speaker 1: to give testimony. And one thing to remember is they
Speaker 1: are on probation in their own state probation here, Well,
Speaker 1: one thing you can't do while your own probation has
Speaker 1: commit other crimes. And so it would be a fool's
Speaker 1: errand for them to go out and try to give
Speaker 1: perjured testimony or false testimony in another court proceeding, especially
Speaker 1: one in a federal court somewhere.
Speaker 2: Do you think the Special Council will try to give
Speaker 2: them a deal or will end up indicting them based
Speaker 2: on what they've pleaded to here.
Speaker 1: It would not surprise me if he simply tried to
Speaker 1: give them some immunity for some testimony. And I say
Speaker 1: that because it seems apparent to me the problems that
Speaker 1: have been created by having a huge case with this
Speaker 1: many defendants in Georgia into this Rico case. And I
Speaker 1: think you saw Jack Smith's case, the Special Characters case
Speaker 1: more narrowly tailored. And I think he recognizes, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily need to put all the menas in
Speaker 1: the sea if I'm just going after the big fish
Speaker 1: in my case. And I think that's that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 1: So I expect that they will use the leverage they
Speaker 1: have over these dependents because of their probation and otherwise
Speaker 1: to get them into a trupal testimony. I also think
Speaker 1: you here in at some point acknowledge some type of
Speaker 1: arrangement for their testimony he's made through their law game.
Speaker 2: I've heard a lot that, you know, flipping encourages more
Speaker 2: flipping encourages more flipping. Do you buy that that after
Speaker 2: these three are going to see more.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see more. But I don't
Speaker 1: know that I attribute it just because somebody flipped. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, typically when you start flipping people on the
Speaker 1: low end, there's not a lot of It's like tipping
Speaker 1: over the dominoes at the end of the line. You know,
Speaker 1: there's just not a lot of movement after that. But
Speaker 1: when you do tip a domino over, that's you know,
Speaker 1: near the front of the line, that can make a
Speaker 1: difference proposed further down. You may see a few people plead.
Speaker 1: But I mean, frankly, I really think that it was
Speaker 1: the idea that you know, and if I were advising
Speaker 1: these particular fits, it would have been, Look, can you
Speaker 1: admit to this conduct? They're asking you to admit to it.
Speaker 1: That answer is yes, you're getting a misdemeanor. You know,
Speaker 1: that's basically like a steam ticket at Georgia. You know,
Speaker 1: they may be stacked on top of each other and
Speaker 1: you're going to get twelve months probation for each one.
Speaker 1: But it's a misdemeanor. In miss Powerce case, in mister
Speaker 1: Chessbrow's case, you know it's a felony, but you're not
Speaker 1: gonna have a record because you can obey yourself with
Speaker 1: certain first offendit of protection and that type of thing,
Speaker 1: and so you know you can get this behind you.
Speaker 1: And the fines were nominal. I mean, they got to
Speaker 1: write a letter of apology, you know, this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't know that that's that was something that I
Speaker 1: feel like particularly compelling and the bi but okay, and
Speaker 1: so it really was by all standards, I think a
Speaker 1: good deal for these defendants to be able to basically
Speaker 1: turn the page on this chapter. And so I don't
Speaker 1: know that other defendants may get the same type of offer.
Speaker 1: I think the strategic move to file the speedy trial
Speaker 1: demand played into the decision here, the fact that this
Speaker 1: case is going to have to be tried. I think
Speaker 1: all of this stuff was in the mix in the
Speaker 1: state was willing to essentially let these two go, and
Speaker 1: frankly too, because I think it was a tougher case.
Speaker 1: When you have lawyers sitting as defendants, you have unique
Speaker 1: legal defenses that can be raised, and those are things
Speaker 1: that the state may not want to deal with at
Speaker 1: this point of the case, especially when they're looking at
Speaker 1: other council like Eastman, Julian at that type of thing.
Speaker 2: So then you think, bottom line, Trump doesn't have that
Speaker 2: much more to fear because these two flipped.
Speaker 1: Well, like I said, kind of at the houseset, it's
Speaker 1: never a good day or a defendant to have is
Speaker 1: or her co defendants flipped and start entering guilty please.
Speaker 1: And Trump has been sort of masterful in the way
Speaker 1: he is controlled I think some witness and potential co defendants,
Speaker 1: both by paying legal fees and you know, raising money
Speaker 1: for him doing this kind of thing, And that is
Speaker 1: one way I think he's trying to kind of keep
Speaker 1: his timb on folks. But so I do think he
Speaker 1: always has something to fear, and I think he has
Speaker 1: to be thinking at this point, you know, I hope
Speaker 1: this is the end. I don't think these folks are
Speaker 1: going to hurt me, but I still need to be
Speaker 1: aware of the possibility that other people who I may
Speaker 1: not have as much influence with, they may in fact decide,
Speaker 1: you know, that they're going to come forward with some
Speaker 1: other you know, some of them more daming testimony. Ms
Speaker 1: Powell's charges were so limited in the indictment, and you know,
Speaker 1: this was a very thorough indictment. And have they had
Speaker 1: some additional overt acts? Have they had some additional predicate
Speaker 1: acts that impacted her? I think we would have seen
Speaker 1: that spelled out in the DA's case. But the allegations
Speaker 1: that they made against Ms Powell were sort of specific
Speaker 1: as it related to this incident in Coffee County, Georgia.
Speaker 1: The allegations against mister Chessbro, of course dealt with a
Speaker 1: very new position relating to the alternative electors. Again, both
Speaker 1: somewhat removed, I think from the former president. You know,
Speaker 1: there'll be a unique argument. I think that you will
Speaker 1: hear and it will be a defense. I think you
Speaker 1: may be seeing it somewhat now from Trump saying that
Speaker 1: he wasn't represented by Sidney Powell. We may have in fact,
Speaker 1: now we may be seeing sort of the technical niceties
Speaker 1: of who is the actual client. Is that Trump is
Speaker 1: an individual? Is it or is it the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: which Trump is not named as an individual, or is
Speaker 1: it you know, another organization, And so we may start
Speaker 1: seeing those maneuverings as well. It'll will be instancy who
Speaker 1: Princess Mistyles says she was representing in a particular tie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was wondering when he said that she didn't
Speaker 2: represent him. So where does that put his advice of
Speaker 2: council defense? I mean, also, if all these people are pleading,
Speaker 2: all his attorneys are pleading on him, are almost Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great that's a great question, and
Speaker 1: I think it is also so maybe indicative of some
Speaker 1: of the problems that we may see prosecutors have down
Speaker 1: the road or jurors have as they think about the
Speaker 1: case that is in the case and ultimately a pelic
Speaker 1: courts on when you charge a president who basically is
Speaker 1: a person sitting in an office that's getting advice from everybody, lawyer's,
Speaker 1: non lawyer's, cabinet people, chiefs of staff, you know, but
Speaker 1: the lawyers are coming in telling them what to do.
Speaker 1: Does that mean he can't readily rely on that for
Speaker 1: fear that he may They didn't represent him individually, but
Speaker 1: they represented something to somebody that he may have been
Speaker 1: associated with, or a group he may have been associated with.
Speaker 1: Does that mean that he loses that defense. I don't
Speaker 1: think he does, because I think sort of the executive
Speaker 1: privilege umbrella is made in fact to sort of cover
Speaker 1: this very situation where you have advice coming from different people.
Speaker 1: But it's a great point, and I think again it's
Speaker 1: relevant because of the unique nature of this case and
Speaker 1: bringing charges, especially the state charges against a former president
Speaker 1: for conduct that occurred while he was a sitting president
Speaker 1: of the United States, enjoying in fact that privilege. So
Speaker 1: that's a question that I thank you. May find nine
Speaker 1: folks and all a nice bench in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Making a decision about it.
Speaker 2: Some point sounds about right, Thanks so much, Michael. That's
Speaker 2: Michael Moore of Moore Hall, the former US attorney for
Speaker 2: the Middle District of Georgia. Coming up next, Migrant numbers
Speaker 2: are reaching new highs at the southern border. I'm June
Speaker 2: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: From day one, this administration is made clear that a
Speaker 3: border wall is not the answer. That remains our position,
Speaker 3: and our position has never wavered.
Speaker 2: Despite that statement from Homeland Security Secretary Alejandra Majorcis about
Speaker 2: two weeks ago. The Biden administration has made the confusing
Speaker 2: decision to build up to twenty miles of border wall
Speaker 2: authorized during the Trump administration. President Biden is also asking
Speaker 2: Congress for eleven billion dollars for border security and migration
Speaker 2: matters as part of the one hundred billion dollar request
Speaker 2: to support Israel and Ukraine. The migration challenges facing the
Speaker 2: US are increasing, with record numbers of migrants at the
Speaker 2: southern border. Arrest for illegal crossings were up twenty one
Speaker 2: percent last month to two hundred and nineteen thousand. Joining
Speaker 2: me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner at
Speaker 2: Holland and Knight. There were more migrant encounters last month
Speaker 2: than in any month last year. So whatever the Biden
Speaker 2: administration is doing is not working.
Speaker 1: Is it.
Speaker 4: No? Unfortunately, the problem is everything happens through a sort
Speaker 4: of trial and error experimentation process, and when people saw
Speaker 4: that at the end of the day, the legal pathways
Speaker 4: were taking too long. And even though there are legal pathways,
Speaker 4: and it's just to give the Bide the administration credits
Speaker 4: for the two legal pathways they created, which number one
Speaker 4: A parole program that allows you to apply online and
Speaker 4: if you are from Cuba eighty Nicaragri, Venezuela, you can
Speaker 4: potentially win one of thirty thousand monthly plots to come
Speaker 4: in or what's called the CBP one app appointment system
Speaker 4: where you actually show up in an orderly fashion for
Speaker 4: the court of Entry. Those are great new innovations, but
Speaker 4: because each of them takes too long and is not
Speaker 4: guarantee to actually lead to either an appointment or a plot,
Speaker 4: people have decided to take matters into their own hands,
Speaker 4: and the consequences of doing that are insignificant because just
Speaker 4: the fact that you're banned from asylum ten years from
Speaker 4: now when your case finally gets the immigration court doesn't
Speaker 4: seem to matter to people because they can still a
Speaker 4: get something called withholding of removal, which is less than
Speaker 4: asylum allows them to say, but me, some significant percentage
Speaker 4: of this group isn't looking to actually show up the
Speaker 4: immigration court at the end of the day, but it's
Speaker 4: just looking to be in America and bide their time.
Speaker 4: And so from that perspective, that's what we're seeing. We're
Speaker 4: now seeing that that trial and error period has failed,
Speaker 4: and people realize that the unlawful route is still the route,
Speaker 4: unfortunately that pays the best civity.
Speaker 2: In his address last Thursday, President Biden said he'd be
Speaker 2: requesting one hundred billion dollars in emergency aid for the
Speaker 2: southern border and international ally facing crises. What would that
Speaker 2: be used for? And is that just a drop in
Speaker 2: the bucket in this problem.
Speaker 4: The problem is that all of the money that goes
Speaker 4: down to the southern border doesn't change the legal framework
Speaker 4: of things. It goes toward the more expedited housing processing
Speaker 4: and transferring into the interior of the country of the
Speaker 4: people who make a credible asylum plate. And so that's
Speaker 4: the problem is at the end of the day, that
Speaker 4: money is really going to make the process smoother. But
Speaker 4: people are complaining that the point of this is not
Speaker 4: to make the process smoother, it's to try to actually
Speaker 4: make it so that only people with the most credible
Speaker 4: possible asylum cases actually end up entering the interior of
Speaker 4: the United States, and that money can't go to that
Speaker 4: because the law doesn't permit that at the moment. The
Speaker 4: law says, if you articulate any credible fear of asylum,
Speaker 4: you have to be let into the interior of the country.
Speaker 4: And so all that this money does is get that
Speaker 4: initial processing period faster and more efficiently handled for people.
Speaker 2: Leon you know, in the law, everything's subject to interpretation,
Speaker 2: So could the interpretation of what is a credible fear
Speaker 2: be changed to require more?
Speaker 4: So what happens is that does happen to a degree,
Speaker 4: And so you've seen over the course of I would say,
Speaker 4: the last decade, depending on when these crises get worse
Speaker 4: or better, they issue these memos that basically rearticulate, in
Speaker 4: a sort of subtle manner bear Uscis asylum officer, A
Speaker 4: credible fear does not include this, it includes this, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And the problem is that that moves the needle. And
Speaker 4: let's say, instead of eighty percent of the claims being successful,
Speaker 4: we now see there's actually been a reduction sixty percent
Speaker 4: of the claims being successful. But we're talking about sixty
Speaker 4: percent of two hundred thousand people coming into the country,
Speaker 4: and so people won't feel that numerically because it's still
Speaker 4: one hundred and forty thousand people, which if you were
Speaker 4: to do that on an annualized basis, is still nearly
Speaker 4: two million people. And so that's the problem that they're
Speaker 4: running up again, is they actually are dialing it up
Speaker 4: as much as possible. But even within that comfine unless
Speaker 4: you were to do something illegal and just start wholeheartedly
Speaker 4: banning people saying that nobody's claim as credible. People generally
Speaker 4: are coached who say the right words that will articulate
Speaker 4: the credible fear claim for whatever country they're from, and
Speaker 4: so it's very hard to shut it down completely. But
Speaker 4: you have seen it dialed up, but again you're dialing
Speaker 4: it up from a percentage standpoint of a march larger numerator,
Speaker 4: and so eighty percent of one hundred thousand was still
Speaker 4: less than sixty percent of two hundred thousand.
Speaker 2: Let's turn to the H one B visas, which allow
Speaker 2: employers to add foreign workers with specialized skills for up
Speaker 2: to two to three years, with options to extend the
Speaker 2: status further when visa holders are in the process of
Speaker 2: applying for permanent residency. So dement on that program has
Speaker 2: far exceeded the eighty five thousand new visas that are
Speaker 2: available annually. Registrations for the annual lottery exceeded seven hundred
Speaker 2: and forty thousand for twenty twenty four. Tell us about
Speaker 2: the changes that the Department of Homelands Security is proposing.
Speaker 4: Well, the main change that they're going to implement is
Speaker 4: that when this lottery system was established in the lottery
Speaker 4: system has been around for quite a while, but the
Speaker 4: lottery system used to just be a one for one
Speaker 4: situation where one company would apply for one employee because
Speaker 4: it was too expensive for multiple companies to apply for
Speaker 4: the same employee because you actually had to put in
Speaker 4: the entire visa application package and support evidence and affidavis
Speaker 4: and everything else, and that was about a ten thousand
Speaker 4: dollars expense for employers, so multiple employers didn't want to
Speaker 4: do that for the same person. But the Trump administration
Speaker 4: changed this process and said, instead of having to put
Speaker 4: the whole application in upfront, just put your name, address, date,
Speaker 4: pass for a number of very simple data and then
Speaker 4: if you win, we'll ask you to come forward and
Speaker 4: put in the entire three hundred PA each application. The
Speaker 4: odor is process. Okay, that's great, and it found efficient,
Speaker 4: but everything has trained out some life, and so what
Speaker 4: happened was because it became so easy and so cheap
Speaker 4: to put in applications, what happened was companies, not the
Speaker 4: larger tech companies, not the Googles and Intels and ciscos
Speaker 4: of the world, but these sort of smaller tech companies
Speaker 4: that might have fifty one hundred employees that are these
Speaker 4: sort of you know, family owned type tech companies decided
Speaker 4: to basically fool their resources together and form maybe blocks
Speaker 4: of one hundred two hundred companies where they would all
Speaker 4: apply for the exact same list of ten thousand workers
Speaker 4: from India, let's say. And then, however those workers ended
Speaker 4: up getting selected from whichever companies they just transferred them
Speaker 4: to end up getting an even number of workers for
Speaker 4: the companies. So that was radically gaining the system, and
Speaker 4: it was creating many, many more applications that were actually
Speaker 4: naturally desired. And so what this change does is this
Speaker 4: change says you can only apply for a person one time,
Speaker 4: meaning that person only has one chance to win the lottery.
Speaker 4: They don't have sixty different chances to win the lottery.
Speaker 4: But from there then they can go to any of
Speaker 4: the employers that express an interest to them, which will
Speaker 4: ultimately then give them more bargaining power visa v. Their
Speaker 4: ability to say, Okay, I just want a lottery slot,
Speaker 4: so if you want to have me because I've won
Speaker 4: a lottery slot, you can have me tack amongst the
Speaker 4: employers which one you want. So it's changed the ballad
Speaker 4: from the employers rigging the system to now a more
Speaker 4: employee based chance to be a free agent, so to speak.
Speaker 2: I guess we'll have to wait and see if it
Speaker 2: changes the gaming of the system. New York City has
Speaker 2: struggled to deal with the arrival of more than one
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty thousand aside islum seekers in the past year.
Speaker 2: About sixty thousand are currently in shelters run by the city,
Speaker 2: which is legally required to provide emergency housing to homeless people.
Speaker 2: Mayor Eric Adams announced in July that New York City
Speaker 2: would start giving adult migrants sixty days notice to move
Speaker 2: out of city shelters, and about three thousand asylum seekers
Speaker 2: have been told their time was up in the shelters,
Speaker 2: but about half have reapplied to stay. I've been talking
Speaker 2: to Leon Fresco, a partner to Holland a Knight. What
Speaker 2: else can Adams do?
Speaker 4: This is where as heartbreaking as people you know don't
Speaker 4: want to do these types of things, the actual answer
Speaker 4: for this, as it has always been in the history
Speaker 4: of America until six months ago for whatever reason, is
Speaker 4: that if a person does not have a fixed address
Speaker 4: and doesn't have a place where the governments can actually
Speaker 4: keep track of them, those individuals have to go into
Speaker 4: IMS or ice house, not IMS, just be colloquial for
Speaker 4: your listeners, ice custody so that their hearings can go
Speaker 4: quickly and they can either succeed or not succeed. But
Speaker 4: those people shouldn't be in shelter, they shouldn't be homeless,
Speaker 4: they shouldn't be in the middle of the street. The
Speaker 4: only people who should be leading ice custody are people
Speaker 4: who have a sixth address and someone who's willing to
Speaker 4: take quote unquote ownership or custody of the person make
Speaker 4: sure that they'll show up the court and do the
Speaker 4: things they need to do. And really, if we're talking
Speaker 4: about more money for the Department of Homeland Security, that's
Speaker 4: what it should be going for. And we're not saying
Speaker 4: that people need to be in a prison. That's nobody
Speaker 4: needs to do that, but you have to have them
Speaker 4: in a facility where they can't leave and where their
Speaker 4: case can then be adjudicated quickly, so that at that
Speaker 4: point then either they get to stay and they can
Speaker 4: start working immediately and they're not a drain on the society.
Speaker 4: Or if they don't have an asylum plane, they can
Speaker 4: be repatriated back to their home country.
Speaker 2: But that would be the federal government doing that.
Speaker 4: Right, that is true. But Adams I have not heard
Speaker 4: him say I take the people into custody from my shelter.
Speaker 4: I think he knows he'd be killed politically for saying that.
Speaker 4: But that's what he needs to say, and that's going
Speaker 4: to be the only solution of this problem. Is is
Speaker 4: if you don't leave this shelter, you're going into ICE custody.
Speaker 4: So you would need two things. You need Adams to
Speaker 4: push for this, and you would need that ICE to
Speaker 4: agree to it. But even if Ice doesn't agree to it,
Speaker 4: just Adam pushing for it at least solves the problem
Speaker 4: from his perspective because he can say, this is what
Speaker 4: needs to happen, this is what has traditionally happened. I'm
Speaker 4: not being cruel. Everybody who has come into America for
Speaker 4: decades has known if you don't have a fixed address
Speaker 4: or a fixed sponsor, you can't expect to be let
Speaker 4: out of immigration. Something in New.
Speaker 2: York City is challenging that right to shelter and trying
Speaker 2: to get the requirements suspended, and apparently there are negotiations
Speaker 2: going on in court.
Speaker 4: And from the standpoint of let's say they succeed, so
Speaker 4: what so now that people are let out in the
Speaker 4: shelter and they're out on the street, that doesn't so much.
Speaker 4: And so that's why the point is ICE needs to
Speaker 4: at the front and not release people. And that's the
Speaker 4: conversations Adams now has to have on the back end,
Speaker 4: which is, if you did release people and now we
Speaker 4: can't house them, then ICE us to come back and
Speaker 4: have a conversation with these people. Do you really, really,
Speaker 4: really really not have someone in the United States that
Speaker 4: can sponsor you, because if you're not, then we're going
Speaker 4: to have to put you back at immigration custody.
Speaker 2: Mayor Adams also traveled to Mexico, apparently with the aim
Speaker 2: of telling would be migrants not to come to New
Speaker 2: York City. Do those kinds of trips and please ever work.
Speaker 4: Here's the problem that message if don't come to America,
Speaker 4: I'm the trek is dangerous isn't working because that's not
Speaker 4: the world we live in anymore. It's not two thousand,
Speaker 4: it's not two thousand and five. Right now, are getting
Speaker 4: real time information on their phone that has the exact
Speaker 4: questions the CBP is asking which locations on any given
Speaker 4: day are staffs less or more, which positions, which kinds
Speaker 4: of day you should come into, where's the least way
Speaker 4: to get into the country. And with all of that,
Speaker 4: people understand these are the ways to safely enter the
Speaker 4: United States, and a politician saying don't come in is
Speaker 4: not going to have any relevance to those individuals. What
Speaker 4: we'll have relevance are the real time reports people are receiving,
Speaker 4: and there's no way now in twenty twenty three to
Speaker 4: block those real time reports. So the only way to
Speaker 4: change the infrastructure of what's happening in the border is
Speaker 4: to actually change the manner in which people are being
Speaker 4: processed and have that word get out that looks spending
Speaker 4: fifty thousand dollars is not leading anywhere because you're only
Speaker 4: sucking the tention or you're only being put out into
Speaker 4: Mexico while you wait for your case to be decided.
Speaker 4: The results they hear is you're allowed to answer the
Speaker 4: United States without any conditions other than to record month
Speaker 4: from now that's not going to.
Speaker 2: This or anyone, and we're sure to hear more and
Speaker 2: more about immigration issues as campaigning picks up next year.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Hollanden Night,
Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg